- The Washington Times - Friday, January 30, 2004

Democratic presidential candidates can criticize President Bush’s conduct of the War on Terror and his decision to attack Iraq with relative impunity now, but soon the eventual nominee will have to account for his irresponsible stands on those issues — and it won’t be pleasant for him.

The Democrats’ claim Mr. Bush didn’t marshal a large enough coalition is bogus, and their charge he exaggerated reports of WMD is a diversion and a red herring, except on the issue of Mr. Bush’s character. But I doubt anything close to a majority of Americans believe the carefully orchestrated Democratic lie that President Bush deliberately exaggerated evidence to justify an invasion of Iraq that his neoconservative puppet masters choreographed well ahead of his Inauguration.

The analysis should, and hopefully will, turn on how President Bush acted based on the intelligence available to him — and the Democratic members of Congress at the time.

The issue is not what we know or think we know now about Iraq’s WMD. Even David Kay’s initial statement over the weekend expressing doubt about Iraq’s absence of WMD stockpiles should have little bearing on the debate. (Though it should be noted Mr. Kay believes Iraq had some WMD — because he said they were moved to Syria shortly before the American invasion. Mr. Kay also implied Mr. Bush is blameless in this matter, because if there was a failure, it was one of intelligence, not executive leadership.)

The issue is how President Bush performed his duties as commander in chief based on intelligence that Saddam was feverishly pursuing WMD and diligently trying to conceal his actions — and this was what our intelligence indicated, no matter how ardently Democrats deny it.

President Bush gave Saddam chance after chance to demonstrate he had complied with United Nations resolutions. Repeatedly, the dictator thumbed his nose at us and then openly mocked us with his 12,000-page farce of a compliance declaration. (Neither the Democrats nor their French and German soulmates have ever explained what motivated Saddam to play that game, if in fact he was complying with the resolutions. David Kay gives us a possible explanation: Saddam thought he was creating WMD; his scientists were duping him.)

When it became clear Saddam was not going to cooperate, President Bush began patiently and persistently to lobby our allies and the U.N. in favor of military action. After giving Saddam one last chance to comply — which he did not, and we must never forget that — and exhausting reasonable efforts to expand the coalition of the willing, he did what good leaders do: He took decisive action.

What did his opponents do or say they would have done? Well, Howard Dean says he would have opposed the war, and Wesley Clark, typically, has said different things to different people but now is steadfastly opposed. Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards expediently voted for the resolution simply because the overwhelming majority of Americans supported it at the time. Mr. Kerry later tried to squirm out of his vote, not because he discovered new information or came to believe Mr. Bush lied about the intelligence, but because Mr. Dean was making headway on the campaign trail with a fervent antiwar message. And both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards, also to save face with their base, shamelessly voted against the $87 billion resolution for American troops and rebuilding Iraq.

Mr. Kerry offers the lame excuse that he understood the war resolution to authorize military action only as a last resort. But the resolution was unambiguous. And nearly all the leading Democrats claim Mr. Bush misrepresented the intelligence data, though their party leaders had access to that very same intelligence themselves. Would Harry Truman approve of his party’s would-be successors to the presidency so dishonorably passing the buck or vacillating on this critical issue?

Regardless of the Democrats’ efforts to scapegoat Mr. Bush, most of them will have to explain why they wouldn’t have invaded Iraq based on existing intelligence at the time — irrespective of what President Bush did or didn’t say about it. Let them try to reconcile this with their pretensions to be bullish on American security.

Democratic candidates are between a rock and a hard place — caught between their foaming antiwar base and a sober American mainstream that knows we have to take the war to the terrorists and their nation-state sponsors.

The leading Democratic candidates, including John Kerry, despite his heroic record in Vietnam, are committed doves and soft on national defense and American security. When the dust settles from the primary season, it will be interesting to see how the Democratic nominee tries to meet his burden of proving he will make a good commander in chief. A tough burden indeed.

David Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated columnist.

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2020 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide